Just the Facts, Please:
Judges Must Exercise Caution When Relying on Surveys and Polls

By Erin Murphy

Last week’s change-of-venue proceedings in Scott Peterson’s double-murder trial beg the question. Who is less concerned with legitimate evidence: the college students who falsified survey data used to demonstrate juror bias, or the judge who cited a college class’s survey in his ruling?

Citing evidence of bias due to intense media coverage of the Scott Peterson case, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami ruled last week that Peterson’s trial should be moved to another county. Among that evidence was the testimony of Stephen Schoenthaler, a California State University criminology professor, who conducted a survey regarding potential juror bias in Stanislaus and its surrounding counties. The survey, which reportedly included information from 1,175 potential jurors polled by 65 of Schoenthaler’s students as part of a fall semester course, demonstrated heightened bias among Stanislaus County residents.

But some interesting facts about Schoenthaler’s survey have emerged since the ruling came down. Apparently plagued with guilt or incredulity at seeing Judge Girolami seemingly rely upon their survey, at least nine students have come forward and admitted fabricating some or all of the data they submitted. The details of the situation give rise to a host of questions and concerns not just about the classroom, but also about the courtroom.

Schoenthaler violated a federal mandate and school policy by failing to notify university officials that students would be conducting the survey. Further, despite having phone numbers of all alleged survey respondents, he made no attempts to verify any of the data before submitting it to the court. And upon hearing of his students’ admissions of guilt, Schoenthaler’s initial reaction was to dispute their claims. What exactly would drive students to pretend they fabricated a project worth 20 percent of their grades is a mystery the professor has yet to explain. While Schoenthaler’s apparent motives — to provide a public service and save taxpayers money — may be admirable, his faulty method has more likely served to stigmatize any future data collected by students.

Although Schoenthaler is an obvious scapegoat for the survey fiasco — the American Association for Public Opinion Research has even accused him of exploiting his students — the students are far from victims. These are seniors in the university’s criminology program; they represent the future of our criminal justice system. The message they appear to have learned in college? Truth isn’t that important. And we’re not just talking about taking a few short cuts. At least six students admit making up every answer they submitted, despite having to include respondents’ phone numbers as a failsafe against cheating.

As if there aren’t enough criminals out there with no regard for the rules, this criminology program is apparently fostering the same mentality among future law enforcers. These students’ actions demonstrate not only a disturbing disregard for rules, but also an utter lack of concern for being caught. Students attempted to justify their behavior based on time and budgetary constraints; they had to complete the project during final exams and pay for the long distance phone calls themselves. Did it cross anyone’s mind to present these complaints to the professor? Even if the professor had no sympathy (which some of their classmates have said is not the case), a university would be hard pressed to deny assistance to students who couldn’t afford the costs of a project worth 20 percent of their grade. Any responsible student truly burdened by such constraints would have at least explored these options before determining that fabricating results was the best route to take.

Perhaps the most troublesome issue is how this survey got into Judge Girolami’s courtroom in the first place. The town of Modesto has to close down an entire block every time Peterson makes a court appearance. The case has been the subject of more than 150 stories in the local newspaper, and thousands of residents in the relatively small town helped search for Laci Peterson after her disappearance. Is a survey conducted by 65 college students really necessary to demonstrate the need for a change of venue? Yet the judge not only accepted the survey as an official exhibit but even cited it in his ruling.

In case Judge Girolami missed the memo after the 2000 presidential election, surveys and polls are notoriously unreliable, even when conducted by professionals. Although such studies have their place, that place is not the courtroom. Judges must keep in mind that these are social studies, not conclusive science. Possibilities of data manipulation, biased question design, inaccurate samplings and dishonest respondents put surveys on shaky ground to begin with; throw in inexperienced student surveyors working on their own dime and you have a recipe for disaster. Particularly given a situation where the facts alone can easily justify the result, such inherently suspect data warrants no role in judicial decision-making. Although Schoenthaler’s survey may not have provided the public service he intended, hopefully it imparted an equally valuable lesson regarding the dangers of relying on pseudoscientific research in the courtroom.

Erin Murphy is a student at Georgetown University Law Center and an intern at the Center for Individual Freedom.

Return to Current Events Index